cameroncrazy1984:MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Benevolent Misanthrope:cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that

Aar1012:Grand_Moff_Joseph: Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that

They have 4 votes before the case gets there. Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one. And Kennedy seems to be trending the wrong way these days.

Roberts did pro bono work for gay rights cases in the past. On the side of gay rights. Yes, yes there's his comment about how a lawyer doesn't necessarily agree with a case he takes, but if you believe that for federal appellate cases, I've got a nice bridge you might be interested in.

Somacandra:Grand_Moff_Joseph: No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

Depends on whether the Court sees a fundamental right at stake, whether the strict scrutiny/compelling state interest comes into play, I think.

In that scenario, denying gays access to a public service (state marriage) is a denial of a fundamental right that is afforded to all others...much the same way that Plessy denied public services of equal value to blacks.

WhyteRaven74:Benevolent Misanthrope: And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

you assume such a thing could ever get out of Congress and even if it did, that the President would sign it. If the president is the same as the current one, that would never happen.

It can get out of Congress, and Obama will not be president forever. I hope against hope, but I've seen too much hate and too much lip service (DADT, anyone?) and too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.

WhyteRaven74:Roberts did pro bono work for gay rights cases in the past. On the side of gay rights. Yes, yes there's his comment about how a lawyer doesn't necessarily agree with a case he takes, but if you believe that for federal appellate cases, I've got a nice bridge you might be interested in.

Not to mention the fact that Roberts is clearly concerned with his place in history and he knows just as well as anybody that one way or another America is going to have marriage equality sooner rather than later. There's no way that somebody who is concerned with his legacy is going to put himself in the history books as the chief justice who took the wrong side on the great civil rights issue of his era.

The Vice-President has come out in favor of gay marriage, the President has come out in favor of it, and it's now formally a part of the Democratic party platform. Sure, I'm a little skeptical too, but there's certainly enough momentum to start feeling a little elated...

MacEnvy:The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

Yes it will be. The problem is that the social conservatives think it's only liberals when in reality it's people that think it's none of the government's damn business if 2 consenting adults choose to marry.

Three Crooked Squirrels:They have 4 votes before the case gets there. Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one. And Kennedy seems to be trending the wrong way these days.

Kennedy voting with the conservatives on healthcare isn't going to erase the fact that he's ruled the right way on every major gay rights case--even to the point of stretching rational basis scrutiny to the limit in Romer in order to come up with the right decision. He's not going to suddenly go against precedent when all of the precedent that he himself wrote all points to finding in favor of marriage equality.

The constitution is a document that lays out how government functions, not how marriages work.In the bill of rights it says we have the freedom to associate. Lets assume that if I can pick my crowd, I can pick my lover.

If the fed cant control it and the state can't ban it, its probably legal.

This is the kind of mess that happens when you mix up your church and state. Now that we're in the business of handing out benefits to married people, it seems unfair to try and break up relationships or claim that not all marriages are created equal.

LiberalWeenie:It props up their unsustainable system indefinitely. Without it, we'd be forced into single payer or a public option much, much sooner.

I agree with you for the most part, but the fact is you can't accurately predict how the SC will rule based on their real or imagined party affiliations. The ACA ruling is a prime example of that.

"Single Payer" was a non-starter on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sure, that may change, but the ACA was probably the best option we were going to get as far as health care reform at the present time.

As a MA resident who has his family's insurance through the MA Health Connector, I'm quite happy with the system we have here in MA. Yeah, I also think "Single payer" would be a better option, but when it comes to large,diverse democratic republics, one has to be pragmatic.

FTFA: Section 3 of the law violates the 5th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, ruled Bryant, in that it "obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits."

Uhm....that's the 14th, isn't it?

Aar1012:You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that

This is the same SCOTUS that upheld Obamacare. Thanks to Roberts, which quite surprised me, actually...

Benevolent Misanthrope:cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

They'd affirm it but then claim that the ruling can't be referenced by any court ever for any reason.

It's always amusing to watch the US ferociously debate things that have been well-accepted in other places for some time, with neither 'side' making any reference to the empirical evidence only a phone call away.

Why do people still listen to that guy from the National Orgagization for Marriage (I think that's what it's called) when he says that marriage equality wlill destroy marriage in the United States, where here across the border we've had same-sex marriage nationally for over a decade, and essentially nothing has changed?

Well, nothing except that I can say that I live in a place where people can feel good about who there are, and that makes it a nicer place for me to be...but that's selfish in a way, isn't it?

So next time your parents, your dumb uncle, or your mouthy coworker starts jabbering about how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, or diminishes in some unknown way traditional marriage, or destroys the fabric of society, just point north. Ask them if they think my marriage is diminished or lessened in any way? Does Canada strike you as a society that's falling apart?

They're just empirically wrong, it's not a debate. What it is, however, is the ugly step-child of American exceptionalism...the inability to see others.

/would've expected the 14th//didn't expect the 5th///much like the spanish inquisition

The 14th amendment applies to the states. The 5th amendment applies to the federal government. Since this is an issue of the federal government recognizing some of a state's marriage licenses but not others, the 5th applies.

In an ideal world, Section 3 of DOMA would be crushed 9-0 as a complete usurpation of states rights. Unfortunately, Scalia thinks gays are gross, Alito likely will too, and Thomas has never interpreted due process as allowing gays to do stuff.